Wednesday, November 11, 2009

The Dems Are Getting On My Very Last Nerve

Why? Well...

From Sharon Lerner and The Nation:
None of the bills emerging from the House and Senate require insurers to cover all the elements of a standard gynecological "well visit," leaving essential care such as pelvic exams, domestic violence screening, counseling about sexually transmitted diseases, and, perhaps most startlingly, the provision of birth control off the list of basic benefits all insurers must cover. Nor are these services protected from "cost sharing," which means that, depending on what's in the bill that emerges from the Senate, and, later, the contents of a final bill, women could wind up having to pay for some of these services out of their own pockets. So far, mammograms and Pap tests are covered in every version of the legislation...
...The fault for the initial omission can be laid at the feet of Democrats, who shied away from the issue, not wanting to invite controversy, according to women's health advocates who tried unsuccessfully to get women's preventive health care included in the basic benefits package. Some of the concern had to do with cost. Adding any required service to the basic benefits package would mean the Congressional Budget Office would give the bill a higher score, or price tag, leaving it more vulnerable to attack by budget hawks. But another part of the problem clearly stems from the fact that women's bodies have become political lightening rods, even when abortion is not the issue.
Consider what happened when the subject of women's preventive healthcare services came up in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee (HELP) in July, after the minimum benefits package had already been determined. Because some essential care for women wasn't included in the list, HELP committee member Senator Barbara Mikulski proposed an amendment that would require the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) to stipulate that basic women's health services would be covered. The language said nothing about abortion, referring only to "preventive care and screenings."
Yet the voting on the amendment went exactly along pro- and anti-choice lines...

From Ezra Klein:
as Rep. Jim Cooper points out in the interview below, the biggest federal subsidy for private insurance coverage is untouched by Stupak's amendment. It's the $250 billion the government spends each year making employer-sponsored health-care insurance tax-free.

That money, however, subsidizes the insurance of 157 million Americans, many of them quite affluent. Imagine if Stupak had attempted to expand his amendment to their coverage.

From Salon's Frances Kissling:
We started down this road in 1976 when the Hyde Amendment passed and when, in 1980, the Supreme Court upheld the principle that the federal government had the right to enact policies that favored childbirth over abortion by restricting funding for abortion. Most Democrats saw that giving antiabortion taxpayers greater moral standing than women who choose abortion was a political power play. After all, taxpayers don't get any other say in how their taxes are used. Pacifists' dollars support war; anti-bailout Americans saw their taxes go to banks just this year. Except on the issue of abortion, if you want to be a tax resister, the only thing to do is not pay your taxes and go to jail.
And Chris Hayes:


I vote for the Democratic candidate in elections typically because there are two or three parties, and the Dems are generally the ones who profess to be the best on the issues that I care about. And some of those issues selfishly (though not wrongly) are ones I care about because they directly relate to my status as a woman. But part of that means I expect the party I vote for to not use women and their needs as a bargaining chip with those people I didn't vote for. Part of that means I expect the party I donate to, the party I defend, the party I vote for, the party I am a part of to put some friggin' fight into keeping what will directly help women. As Chris Hayes says, "It is very hard to say 'Trust us' right now, after this has happened."

I understand that the healthcare bill, as it stands now, does a lot of good. Ann at Feministing has a nice list going (which I only noticed because Emily covered it). But as it stands, I want a party who will vociferously go to battle instead of what I've got, which is a party that will compromise on the rights I hold dear and then tell me to trust them, that it will all be okay in the end - and then hold Roe over my head like an ax ready to chop when they want my vote or my money when they've already done plenty on their own to gut it.

November seems like it's going to be another Planned Parenthood donation month.

9 comments:

Emily said...

Kate Harding (who I love more and more each time I read something she writes) wrote about this in Salon the other day too (she possibly was going off Kisslings article)? Her and Rebecca Traister argue that the Democratic party is no longer a "women's rights" party, and that our rights have been used for bargaining chips all along and will continue to be used that way. I think the Stupak amendment really brought that to a head.
You can read that here: http://www.salon.com/life/broadsheet/feature/2009/11/10/stupak_stupidity/index.html

I can't believe that this bill doesn't include well gyno visits and DV screening. I mean, what the crap? And my hope was that now all forms of birth control would be covered, especially if they're planning on limiting abortion. But still, no. Insurance companies will go on covering Viagra for 20 year old men, but birth control pills will still be an expensive "lifestyle choice." Really- is any party out there "our" party?

petpluto said...

Kate Harding (who I love more and more each time I read something she writes)

I'm with you there!

Kate Harding (who I love more and more each time I read something she writes) wrote about this in Salon the other day too (she possibly was going off Kisslings article)? Her and Rebecca Traister argue that the Democratic party is no longer a "women's rights" party, and that our rights have been used for bargaining chips all along and will continue to be used that way.

You know, I teared up when I read that.

Really- is any party out there "our" party?

No. I wish I had a different answer, but it's just no. And I can't begin to tell you how much that depresses me. The only silver lining is that we without party are also gays, anti-racists, and pretty much anyone else who doesn't fit the narrow bill.

The Democratic Party seems to be mostly for progressive-ish men who are (by virtue of being progressive-ish) liberaler and more into equal rights than those in the Republican Party, but who nonetheless Just. Don't. Get. It. and think that getting more Dems elected is more important than taking care of those people whose needs and issues may not be politically safe but who, you know, did the lever pulling (or, in my case, bubble-filling) in order to get them elected in the first place.

Maybe tomorrow I'll be more charitable, but tonight, I'm pretty well pissed off.

Jeremy said...

William Saletan over at Slate has a really good piece on this.

Read the whole thing, if you get a chance.

(I realize I'm using the wrong profile. I'm just too lazy to sign in again.)

petpluto said...

(I realize I'm using the wrong profile. I'm just too lazy to sign in again.)

Wow. That's pretty lazy. ;-D

Actually, I think you should make "Jeremy" a team member on your blog and create a whole alter ego. That would be awesome.

William Saletan over at Slate has a really good piece on this.

See, I don't really think he does, and here's why: He's basically saying, "Well, women, you should have totes seen that coming". And maybe women should have, and maybe Chris Hayes should have, and maybe we should have all become the liberal crazed equivalent to the Tea Partiers a long ass time ago. But none of that answers the salient question about why women's issues are the issues to pitch in the Democratic Party when they have to pitch some issues. And it isn't just on this one amendment this one time. This is a consistent thing. This is something that actually happens a lot, and when it does, progressives (mostly men) stop and say, "Well, you gotta give up something for the greater good" or something to that effect.

What I'm tired of is fielding calls and e-mails from the DNC and Democratic members that profess to do so much for women and how bad the Republicans would be for women and then have them try to rationalize shit like this.

Also, he writes like liberals and feminists and women's organizations have been cool with the Hyde Amendment and have been complacent about that and now are totally blindsided by the idea the Hyde Amendment will go farther and do more - but progressives and feminists and women's organizations have been pissed about Hyde since it passed (see: Kissling), and have tried to do away with it time and time again.

Jeremy said...

Well, I think you're right.

The Democrats often do same thing with gays. Meanwhile, they extract huge donations from gay right organizations and women's organizations, and then they typically fail to deliver on their promises.

Perhaps these organizations should stop donating to the Democratic Party?

I think the problem is that there's simply nothing that the Democratic leadership can do. When they steal seats from Republicans, Democrats rarely gain a liberal majority. Rather, they gain a small coalition of Blue Dogs who tend to oppose abortion rights and gay marriage.

The Democratic leadership needs these more socially conservative Blue Dogs to pass health care reform, and that gives the Blue Dogs extraordinary leverage.

You're right that the Blue Dog coalition was largely composed of men, but I don't think abortion ideology is correlated with gender. Similar percentage of women and men oppose abortion.

I think that women are simply more likely to get elected to the House in more liberal states, which means that the women in the House tend to be more liberal. Thus, these women tend to be strong proponents of abortion rights.

petpluto said...

You're right that the Blue Dog coalition was largely composed of men, but I don't think abortion ideology is correlated with gender. Similar percentage of women and men oppose abortion.

I'm not talking about men being Democrats so much as I am that the Democratic Party, even though it purports to be the inclusive party for people like women and gays and minorities, is still a party based on the principles and ideals of white men. And that shines through when you look at what issues are deemed important and which issues can just be bartered away - and which people you say, "Sacrifices had to be made" to or "Next time" to, and bet that those same people will show up because there's no where else for them to turn.

So, when I said the Democratic Party is mostly progressive-ish men, I don't mean that progressive-sh men are most of the members. I'm saying that even though their voting blocks are made up of gays and women and minorities, their philosophical positioning is based mostly on that white, progressive-ish man who claims to care about these other issues, knows the slogan "Women's rights are human rights", and still then comes back to women after something like the Stupak Amendment and tells them to not be hysterical.

But also, there's this from Feministe who looks further into the polling for that particular poll:
http://www.feministe.us/blog/archives/2009/05/15/on-those-new-stats-on-abortion-and-us-public-opinion/

It explores further what those numbers really mean, and it talks about the percentages for the questions asked next. A lot of times, pro-choice people will answer questions based on the fact that they are personally pro-life - that they themselves would never get an abortion, and may even think it morally wrong to get an abortion - but who's actual ideas fall in line with the pro-choice camp. I tend to think of that as a marketing issue as much as anything else, based on the way the two are discussed.

I think the problem is that there's simply nothing that the Democratic leadership can do.

I think there is something Democratic leadership can do. It can make it clear to the party that women's health - and even reproductive health - does not equal abortion. That women don't equal abortion; that article in The Nation was particularly troubling because the second there was a bill catering to women's health needs, the votes went pro- and anti-choice. What the Dems have allowed and accepted is that women's bodies are politicized, and then used that as an excuse to not fight - because that would make their ability to pass X, Y, and Z start to be a bit wobbly.

Perhaps these organizations should stop donating to the Democratic Party?

Yeah, probably.

My fear is this: I understand that the Dems aren't the party for women or gays; they tend to be better on those issues, but this isn't a party that truly looks after the needs of certain constituents. I'm angry and pissed and upset and I want a party that does look after the needs of me and my fellow ignoreds.

But then I look at 2000, and I think about that Rage Against the Machine video that mashed up W. and Al Gore, and talked about how they were just the same person with two different color ties. And I remember the general feeling of just blahness in the nation. And while I can't say that Al Gore lost and W. won because of that feeling that these two guys were more alike than different and we'd be in roughly the same place under both, I can say that I truly did not enjoy the Bush presidency and would really rather that didn't happen again. So, conundrum.

mikhailbakunin said...

A lot of times, pro-choice people will answer questions based on the fact that they are personally pro-life - that they themselves would never get an abortion, and may even think it morally wrong to get an abortion - but who's actual ideas fall in line with the pro-choice camp. I tend to think of that as a marketing issue as much as anything else, based on the way the two are discussed.

Yeah, but even if you break those numbers down, a strong plurality (42 percent) think that abortion should be "legal only in a few circumstances." That language sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

And if you add that percentage to the 18 percent of Americans who think abortion should be "illegal in all circumstances," you get a clear majority of Americans (60 percent) who lean pro-life.

petpluto said...

Yeah, but even if you break those numbers down, a strong plurality (42 percent) think that abortion should be "legal only in a few circumstances." That language sounds pretty unambiguous to me.

It doesn't to me, for this reason (quoting from the Feministe piece):

To me, “legal under most circumstances” means “well yeah, women should be able to get abortions, but not the ones who I think are total sluts!” And “legal only under a few circumstances” means “illegal except for a woman’s health or in cases of rape/incest.” But they could mean totally different things to you. And they have an even better chance of meaning something totally different to those who don’t spend a lot of time looking at and analyzing the rhetoric around abortion — you know, a majority of respondents. Further, with the exception of total bans on abortion with exceptions for health and rape/incest, deciding which “reasons” a woman gets to have an abortion for is not exactly how public policy works. It’s how public judgment works.

And most interesting to me, and I think relevant to any discussion on the matter, is the fact that a big old part of the shift has come from the Republican side. Among Republicans, there has been a 10% shift away from the pro-choice label to the pro-life one in just this year. Could it be this backlash against Obama that conservatives are conducting at the moment?

mikhailbakunin said...

The author from Feministing writes:

[D]eciding which “reasons” a woman gets to have an abortion for is not exactly how public policy works.

Isn't this exactly what's happening with the Stupak Amendment, though? The Amendment provides exemptions for rape, incest, and the health of the mother. But it prohibits all other abortions.

If you really dive into the data, you find that Americans tend to favor exemptions for rape, incest, the health of the mother (including mental health), and the health or wellbeing of the child. Beyond that, most Americans seem to oppose elective abortion.

For example, if you ask respondents whether they think abortion should be legal "when the woman or family cannot afford to raise the child," a strong majority (61 percent) say no. Likewise for "when the woman does not want the child for any reason" in the first trimester (56 percent).

I would be concerned about the small sample size in some of these surveys if the results weren't so consistent (and typically outside the margin of error).